ABHAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the owner of an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. BRF-7175 is directed against the order, dated the 21st June, 1978 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, rejecting the application of the petitioner for release of the said car which had been seized by the Sitamarhi police in connection with Sitamarhi Police Station Case No. 1 (6) 78.

(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid car. On 1-6-78, at about 12 a. m., the aforesaid case under various sections of the Penal Code, including sections 307 and 379 was instituted against one Sitaram Muradpuri and 30 to 40 unknown persons, on the fardbeyan of the Presiding Officer of a booth in the 1978 Gram Panchayat elections. The prosecution case, very briefly stated, was that on that date an armed mob which had come on various vehicles including can and jeeps etc. and attempted to capture the booth, that the members of the armed mob threw bombs and brickbats, injured several persons and took away the ballot papers and damaged property, that the police party fired in self-defence and that then the mob fled away, that some of the miscreants were fleeing away in the Car BRF-7175 and were arrested and some of the looted ballot papers and some seals were recovered and the car was seized. The report regarding the seizure of the car along with the list of articles seized from the car was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

(3.) On 16-6-78, the petitioner filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate praying that the car be released to him, on the ground that he was the owner of the car and that he had no concern with the case and the car was lying in the open and was likely to be severely damaged. According to the petitioner, he had lent the car to a friend Manoranjan Prasad Singh, residing Bishwanathpur, and the car was seized while proceeding to the house of the said Manoranjan Prasad Singh while the petitioner was at Calcutta. The learned Magistrate called for a report from the police. The Sitamarhi police submitted a report relating the circumstances in which the car was seized and stating that the fact of seizure had been reported to the Court of the learned Magistrate and the list of articles seized had also been sent to him. The report further stated that the documents seized from the car disclosed that the car belonged to the petitioner and that it was being kept in the open in the premises of the police station and recommended that the car be released to the petitioner on furnishing security. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as already stated, has rejected the prayer.